User talk:Iamunknown/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Iamunknown. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Hi, thanks for the warning. You are totally correct, I doubt the image is released under the GFDL. That image wasn't there when the list became featured, I will check what happened with the original image and/or see if I can place something else (free content) otherwise. Tnx again, Garion96 (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Iamunknown, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! 

Please avoid creating additional subpages. This is really confusing discussions. -- User:Docu

Please ignore the above comment. I just read User:Iamunknown/afd . -- User:Docu

No, it's alright. It is confusing. Sorry, Iamunknown 18:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted an edit by a sockpuppet of a banned user, Cplot. WP:BAN states that "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves." Khoikhoi 01:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up the use of GFDL-presumed. --Balloonguy 01:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a good idea but the bot just finished running on a list of over 14,000 images which should have got most of the masses of images. I have received a few requests for this feature and I will look into it but their is a few other I would like to get done first. Thanks for the idea. BJ^Talk 01:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Answer (or maybe non-answer) on my talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 23:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• I developed it, but what did I do wrong? Should I close the article on Renfile, its ok if we have to close it, i dont mind (:O) -nima baghaei 14:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Woops I found it: avoid editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with ... ah well, I wont touch it then (:O) -nima baghaei 14:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Just curious: why did you remove Category:Trademarked images from Template:Trademark? Also, what are you opinions on the template? --Iamunknown 02:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I had just replaced it entirely with the Commons version. I suppose the removal of that template was inadvertant.

Anyway... my thoughts? At first I thought it was very important. I mean, we can't go having people upload homemade product pictures like Image:Gameboy.jpg and release them into the public domain. To me, that just doesn't make sense. But someone told me that the pictures can belong to one person, the trademark to another. So I thought that we could just put this template on all the pictures like the one above. But then I realized that this is already covered... on the disclaimers that are listed at the bottom of every single Wikipedia page. So I guess it's really a moot point.

I'd still like to see that extra warning though. What do you think? tiZom_(2¢) 06:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I have changed the source tag on the image and the original owner of the image has emailed permissions-en at wikimedia dot org. This image is not being used anywhere else. Is there anything else that I need to do to prevent it's removal? Nod 07:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern and I've answered the image deletion proposal at the deletions page. I've also answered your concern of conflict of interest at my talk page. MichaelNetzer 12:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually started by nominating User:TwinsMetsFan's NY signs on IfD. (Actually I found those working the Special:Unusedimages page.) I nominated about 200 and when I went back after the last 100, found that User:MECU had tagged them with the {{ncd}} (now Commons). He had tagged about 50 images for WP:IfD in October that I came across this week, and I've started working through those author's other images. I don't mind competition at all, and recommend that you go ahead and tag the images you've nominated with {{ifd}}. They are likely to be deleted sooner through IfD than ncd, and the nominations will be complete. In the future, it looks like the {{ncd}} tag is easier (one step vs three - you don't have to nominate nor notify), and less stress on the community (no need for community review - these are low controversy deletions). ~ BigrTex 15:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

For tagging images, check out User talk:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js. I don't care for the way it handles notification (I prefer to notify once for a bunch of images instead of for each image), but it will do a great job for adding {{ncd}}, {{db-i1}}, etc. ~ BigrTex 04:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

An artist has been comissioned to replace the image Image:Avc2jv.png with a new one that will be released under the creative common attribution 2.5 license. --Carterhawk 00:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Alas, no, I do not have any access to the actual product. But if you have some, a free image would be wonderful, thanks! :) I was actually thinking that a better pic might be a jar with a few of the actual tablets next to it, but anything that you can come up with would be great. --Elonka 06:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You state at the TfD "Just add it now" - it had been but several dissenters do not wish for it to be in the infobox and thus revert warred. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, a content war. I will modify my note to reflect that. --Iamunknown 19:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There is still no evidence on the source page that this image is in the public domain. What needs to be explicitly mentioned by verifiable, reliable sources, is that the two-dimensional work of art represented was produced (well, actually published) more than 100 years ago. --Iamunknown 20:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

But there are thousands of images on Wikipedia with exactly that sort of information — no copyright claimed or credited at the source page when the image is clearly of an old painting or lithograph comtemporary with the subject. There is no reason why this should be an exception. --Rbraunwa 21:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Which images? Would you consider tagging them with {{subst:nsd}} or listing them at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images or Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion? --Iamunknown 06:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have replied to your comment on the "Image talk:Anastasio Bustamante" page.--210.245.160.188 22:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't totally understand why a source is needed for Image:Azertis.jpg. It's clearly a propaganda poster from the arrow cross, which ceased to exist after WWII. Can I remove the tag please? - TheMightyQuill 01:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A source itself is not exactly unnecessary; indeed, the country, year, and creator (or the creator's anonymity) is necessary to establish copyright. You may remove the tag if you like. In that case, I will likely take it to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images or Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. --Iamunknown 06:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Then while you're at it, you should add that tag to all the images in Nazi_propaganda, because none of them seem to have sources either. - TheMightyQuill 08:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't have a problem, go ahead. Kc4 01:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This whole issue is rather complicated and I'm afraid I haven't handled it too well. This'll all eventually go to Commons and there's a discussion now at Commons:Template_talk:PD-LOC on how to organize these types of images generally. Yeah, I guess Category:Library of Congress images this would fit CSD C1, but perhaps we should keep it around until the rest of the mess is sorted out. Thanks.--Pharos 05:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You may have misread what I wrote. I did not "toil" with the article that is my biography, please read again what I said above and note that this relates to another article Expanding earth theory which has nothing to do with me. It is a subject I'm knowledgeable in and I am affilliated with scientists and researchers who are identified with it. That was the reference to "toil"... not at my biography. Please note that all my edits at my bio were minor edits and caused no toil nor did I expend any serious effort there. I simply corrected minor factual issues. I did not write that biography nor did I upload it.

The referenced material shows that at several interviews it is mentioned by third party interviewers that I was known as Mike Nasser for the first decade of my comics career and then changed my name. Even this Wiki bio began as a Mike Nasser bio because that's how the creator of the stub began it. I've added a reference to a DC Comics biography from 1977 which verifies this. In order to verify the the statement "dedicated to bringing the comics community together for the betterment of society." a reference is made to the Star Reach publication # 12 editorial. This is verification of the statement yet all the interviews cited also contain third party comments by the interviewers indicating this as a thrust of my work in the comics industry. Here is one such comment by an interviewer at the Being and Time interview cited in the article:

The result of my interview with Mr. Netzer was a back and forth conversation that covered a much wider variety of topics than what Jason initially assigned-including Mr. Netzer’s hopes for the comic book industry and his relationship with Neal Adams from their initial working relationship to Mr. Netzer’s lawsuit over ownership of Ms. Mystic to their recent reconciliation. Much of the interview, though, is a lengthy discussion (with tangents) on how comic books have the potential to influence social, political, economic, scientific, theological, and philosophical views throughout the world."

I dilligently read the COI page and I understand from it that it does not absolutely forbid what I've done, rather seeks to ensure that any such editing remains unbiased and relies on cited reference. I believe I've tried to do this. I've answered your concerns here and please believe me that my main concern is not to push my point of view at Wikipedia. My only concern, once someone else began an article about me or a subject I'm familiar with, is that the material presented remains as close to the verifiable truth as possible, not for the sake of the material only, but for the integrity of the Wikipedia project which I hold in the highest regard.

Thank you for taking the time to comment on it. I only ask that you read through the interviews and articles cited in the biography in order to find verifications for your queries and if more is needed, I can perhaps help direct you to additional sources not yet cited. MichaelNetzer 12:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to have some more fun substituting user signatures, I found one: User:Blankfaze/sig. Cheers, Iamunknown 02:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. —METS501 (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

On this page, I suggest you put {{clear}} after the call to {{User talk:Iamunknown/top}}. As is, the TOC is not visible to users with a 1024x768 screen like mine. (Maybe if the sidebar is hidden. Mine is not.) I did test this change (without saving) and it worked. Will (Talk - contribs) 04:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Iamunknown 05:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:Nr66.png, go ahead and trash it. I'm surprised those old traffic route things I made are still around to begin with. Peter1968 08:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The image name contains a reference to the book. I belive the date in your question is the publication date of the book, I search the catalog and they exist, with the same publication date. The pics are clearly from pre-1918; that is not hard to recognize if you know the period. Have a nice day. thanks.--OttomanReference 02:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

About the picture at the top of the Eva Peron page, that is a very, very famous picture. Any Argentine would instantly recognize it as being Eva Peron on the balcony of the Casa Rosada. Within Argentine history, it is along the lines of the picture of Che Guevara looking skyward. Save for her relatively brief tour of Europe (with a brief stop-over in Brazil) in the summer of 1947, all pictures of Eva Peron were taken in Argentina. As she is the most historically important woman in Argentine history, every Argentine knows that she died in the 1950s. So, it goes without saying that any picture of her taken on the balcony of the Casa Rosada was taken in Argentina and is more than 50 years old and therefore, under Argentine copyright law, is of expired copyright.

Photographers of Eva Peron at public gatherings are usually all but lost to history. My hunch is that this picture was probably taken by a photographer from Clarin X, but I think at this point it is nearly impossible to find the photographer of this particular image. Trust me. This image was taken in Argentina in the 1950s. You will never find anyone to argue this point. Therefore, you will never find anyone to argue that the image falls under Argentine copyright laws. Thanks. Andrew Parodi 01:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: I thought you might be interested to know that just about all pictures of Eva Peron uploaded to Commons are without sources. In the template that requests "Author" and "Source" others have simply inserted the word "Unknown." We have one of two choices, to accept that these photographers are lost to history, or to disallow the use of any picture of Eva Peron (despite the fact that use is completely legal). It's pretty obvious to me which option is best. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Eva_Peron -- Andrew Parodi 01:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I actually don't feel totally comfortable with dealing with CSD image deletions, but the backlogs on those were so crazy today, I felt like I needed to pitch in. I understand the speedy tags for articles quite well, but this is exactly the kind of feedback I need to understand deleting images. So thanks for taking the time -- consider it deleted! It makes me a better admin. Cheers Dina 01:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Admins that know images are a constant need. It's something I never really understood until I had the power to delete images, but had never spent much time tagging them. Probably it's as easy to understand as the speedies for articles, but I do feel a bit overwhelmed. (as it seems others do, otherwise the backlogs wouldn't get like this.) If your other contribs are good, you might do fine as an "I know how to deal with images" admin candidate. At least, other admins without that experience (like me) would probably give you a support. Let me know if you decide to do it, or want help. Cheers. Dina 01:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not cross post this on my talk page and WP:COI/N. Let's keep it consolidated on COI/N. --Iamunknown 02:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed my comments above at your request. I wanted to inform you about the COI at the deletion review. Sorry. --QuackGuru 02:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:SilentHunterIIIbox.jpg is replaceable by a more free image. Granted, it could never be freely licensed under the GFDL, a CC license, etc. because the art itself is copyrighted, but it could be replaced with a non-promotional image. Please consider putting the tag back in. --Iamunknown 00:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If the primary focus of a new image is the box and no new innovation is made in the image it will still be covered by the original copyright on the box's art. If there is innovation in the new image (innovation = edited, stylized in some way) or the box isn't the focus of the image, then the image wouldn't be appropriate for the article. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The copyright on the current image, as I understand, is owned by whomever created the art (or the company who hired the artist) and whomever took the photograph (or the company who hired the photographer). If a user took a photograph of the box, released his/her remaining rights inherent from the original authorship required to execute such a photograph, then it would be more free than this current promotional image. That's how I understand it. --Iamunknown 00:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the photographer would not somehow gain copyright over the image on the box... and since the photo itself isn't much different then the image on the box the copyright ownership carries over. Thats how I understand it at least. Some of this copyright nonsense is so convoluted... lol ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You Wrote: Do you have any proof to corroborate with your claim on Template:JamaicaCrownCopyright? Relevant legal citations, perhaps? --Iamunknown 05:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and for trying to keep me honest. The template was made almost a year ago and at the time I was living in the states and had access to a decent library of information in English. It was from this that I derived the information on the Jamaican honours system. Today, I have nothing for you and in fact, I cannot even remember the name of my sources (for the licensing or the images). We may simply have to remove the whole kit and kaboodle until more can be done to justify it. Sorry about that.--Eva ^bd 14:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind if I posted the images in a group on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images? The group of editors that frequent that page are much more intelligent and resourceful than I. They may be able to help. --Iamunknown 16:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, even if we assume the terms are as generous as they appear on the template, the terms are not generous enough. By restricting the use of the images to only if "reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context" the terms violate WP's requirement that images be licensed to allow modification and use for any purpose. As such, these images can only be used if they are also tagged with a fair use tag and a detailed fair use rationale. See, for example, the {{CrownCopyright}} license. It's only used on three images, do you think it would make sense to update the template, or just remove it from the images altogether and treat them as any other copyrighted material (i.e. just putting a fair use tag and rationale, if possible)? —RP88 19:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Asismentionedon the talkpge, the game'screators, whomImin contctwith gave me permisison to use any of their promotional imageswhen maaking thisarticle, the link to a thred on their officialforums says as muchswell.

If this is about someWikipediaredtape, then idotn realluycaare, i dont understndwhyhlf the rules about articalsare even thereosmetimes.

Apologies for thespellingerrorsand obviousfaults in thatmessage,mykeybordjustbrokeprettybdlyandimmissingalot of keys. Cosmic Larva 22:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Calton, since I first saw your userfied pages to watch, I've been wondering if I might be able to help out: not necessarily systematically like you have been, but occasionally adding a user page I find.

Sure, whatever you can do is helpful. Add them to the page and I can check them out.

If yes, then what is your method to the madness...

You don't know how hard it is to resist cackling and rubbing my hands together when I read that. As for my methods, this all started as a brief sideline last fall when I came across some (IMHO) inappropriately userfied pages, but the more I dig, the more I find. It's hard to let go once you start.

First, I started by following up the Move logs of certain serial userfiers, and I figured once I got caught up to the present day that would be the end and I could go on to other things. Then, I happened to use the "Search Web Links" feature looking for spam, when it occurred to me to check out how many pages linked to Blogspot: 20,000+, it turned out. Oy.

So I ran searches for pages linking to various freehosting services (Tripod, Geocities, LiveJournal, etc), saved the results (TENS of THOUSANDS, it turns out), massaged the data to list the User pages separately in a spreadsheet (only THOUSANDS, thank goodness). I've been using that list ever since.

I think I've tagged somewhere on the order of 1200 of the damned things (I checked yesterday when I deleted a bunch from my running archive), and maybe I'll see the light at the end of the tunnel soon and I can go on and do something more, well, encyclopedia-building.

Sorry, that was long-winded. But again, thanks for the help. --Calton | Talk 04:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have little time for those who are so pedantic that they must do this to images. Please remove all the tags you have added to them and delist them from articles for deletion. I will update all the information within the next 24 hours; the photos are of my friends and I. michael ^talk 05:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

→Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 March 3 --Iamunknown 05:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't care. Don't waste my time; I give up my time to wander all over my city, take photos and upload them to Wikipedia—you can start using yours more productively. Clean up this mess. michael ^talk 05:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That tag you put on the Astrud Gilberto image is only supposed to be used on generic fairuse tags, not specific ones like {{albumcover}}. —Chowbok ☠ 06:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Which image? --Iamunknown 07:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Image:A Certain Smile.jpg. —Chowbok ☠ 04:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not know to which image Chowbok is referring, but someone just asked me privately what was up with the speedy on Image:Artstar.jpg and Image:Artstar-logo.jpg. There has been some discussion (also here) in the past, but I think the general consensus is that WP:CSD#I6 only permits a speedy delete of images that use the generics like {{Non-free fair use in}} without a rationale, not one of the more specific fair use tags. Images that use the more specific fair use tags but lack a rationale should be deleted via either WP:IFD or WP:PUI. —RP88 07:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that you removed the no-rationale speedy from Image:Artstar-logo.jpg. If you wish, feel free to list it on WP:PUI. It qualifies (it also lacks a source...) By the way, I agree with your no-source speedy of Image:Artstar.jpg. If you hadn't put it on, I would have. —RP88 08:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I, Garion96, award the Barnstar of Diligence in recognition of your work in researching and listing all those images on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. Garion96 (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me be the first to congratulate you Iamunknown. You deserve it. Congratulations! —RP88 07:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. You deserve it for all those damn images I had to delete from WP:PUI. :) Garion96 (talk) 11:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I do list quite a few there. :P --Iamunknown 20:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you too, RP88. :) --Iamunknown 20:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I got your message. What is the code syntax for including a link in a gallery? I have tried this syntax. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think it is possible to provide a link inside of a gallery. You could, however, move the [[:Image:...]] link to the top of the page. --Iamunknown 22:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that, per Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy criterion #9, fair use images are not allowed in any pages outside of articles. I noticed that you directly include Image:Adel panorama.jpg on your user page, on your talk page and on your talk page archive. This is inappropriate. Please remove them. You may, however, include them as a direct link. Thank you. --Iamunknown 06:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You left this edit on my talk page.

Can you explain what you mean by a Direct Link. I have removed the image as you requested and did a link to it instead but I am not sure if that is what you meant by a direct link.

Mobile 01^Talk 13:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. What I meant was that, instead of typing the text [ [Image:Adelpanorama.jpg] ], you may type [ [:Image:Adelpanorama.jpg] ] (without the spaces between the brackets, of course). You may also replace the image with any other freely licensed image. --Iamunknown 18:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I am aware that noncommercial use is forbidden. However, their website has been redesigned since I made this template and the disclaimer has changed noticeably; it used to read "Note : If any of the images provided here are to be displayed elsewhere (internet, publications, etc.), please reference CIMSS. Thank you." I sent them an email a long time ago (which is why I still have that statement available), at which point they indicated that most of their work is PD since they are funded by the USGov. Their policies may have changed, however. I should note that it does not explicitly say "commercial use forbidden unless fees paid", or something along those lines, so I've sent a new email to clarify. --Tom (talk - email) 19:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I originally had it as :# which started the numbering over again. Thanks for the advice. John Reaves (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I posted the meaning. Thanks--NAHID 20:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll look it over more carefully when I have time, but what leaped out at me at a quick glance was "I have orphaned it from...": "orphaned" may be too much jargon for this sort of message. How about "I have removed it from all article pages..." or something similar? --Calton | Talk 07:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree with calton regarding on "I have orphaned it from..." and "orphaned" . It sounds like pretentious.Only for deleting an image, we shouldn't orphan it from article.Thanks--NAHID 18:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• "I have removed it from all article pages..." NO, Again we shouldn't remove image from articles. If we do so, then this template {{subst:orfud}} would be worthless.
• Thank you for uploading Image:Phenazepam pack.JPG. As a work of the Swiss government, it is inappropriately licensed with {{PD-SwedGov-attribution}}. I have removed that tag and replaced it with {{no license}}. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. --Iamunknown 23:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"I have removed that tag and replaced it with {{subst:no license}}"- It looks like jargon statement (again). But We've no rights to remove the tag and put it for deletion unless the image has {{no license}} tag.

Your fears come true, the bot you speak of is mostly coded. I don't really think the problem you speak of is a big deal. Yes, mistagging is a problem but I don't think a few more caused by the bot are going to hurt anything. As for the "database" somebody else has been providing the list for BJBot to process but I am learning SQL so I can do it myself. I really think this is a bot task but this list at last count was only at 3000 (48h max for my bot, 30+ days for humans). BJ^Talk 07:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I just received a warning from you on my talk page about uploading a fair sue image that could be replaceable. While I admire the zeal in enforcing fair use guidelines, such warnings should probably not be given out for very old fair use images, as this one was (over a year ago; I don't even remember uploading it), or at least not with the implication of it being a recent upload. Just tag the image. (I've deleted the image, by the way.) Cheers! —Cuiviénen 20:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If I had implied that it was a recently uploaded image, I would have used Template:Replaceable fair use 2. --Iamunknown 20:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right though. And most users wouldn't be nice about it like you. :) --Iamunknown 20:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The source would be the copyright holder of "Halo 2." The image also needs a fair use rationale for use in the article Covenant Elite . -Regards Nv8200p talk 22:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that fair use images tagged with non-generic fair use image copyright tags did not necessarily need fair use rationales. Or, at least, that was what I was told March 3rd when I was caught tagging some non-generic fair use images without rationales with {{subst:nrd}}. Is that not the case? --Iamunknown 22:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse me jumping in uninvited. But, no, all fair use image copyright tags require fair use rationales. It's just that the non-generic fair use tags without rationales aren't currently eligible for speedy deletion (although there appears to be movement underway to change this...). If they lack a fair use rationale you can do three things: (1) tag with {{Fair use disputed}} and if no fair use rationale is added in 2 days then it can be tagged with {{db-badfairuse}}, (2) list on WP:IFD, or (3) list on WP:PUI. —RP88 04:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ooo, I like that first option. I see that Template:Fair use disputed was updated last month. I know I've used the template before, but it was in December when it was still not speedy-able. Thanks for the update. --Iamunknown 04:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that, in the course of a discussion at WT:CSD#Concerning_I6, bainer has modified the language at WP:CSD to include all fair use templates, not just the generic ones. If his change sticks, you may be able to go back to marking all fair use images without fair use rationale using {{subst:Nrd}}. —RP88 05:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't realize such contemporary discussion were going. I better watchlist WP:CSD. --Iamunknown 05:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the change seems to have gone through. All of the relevant templates were just updated by bainer. So I guess any fair use image without a rationale that was uploaded after May 4, 2006 can now be tagged for speedy deletion with {{subst:nrd}}. Older images will still have to use one of the three methods above. I too personally like tag {{Fair use disputed}}, wait a week (older images require a week wait, not 48 hours), and then tag with {{db-badfairuse}}. —RP88 14:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You've been very helpful over at WP:MCQ, but you can also save yourself some work. When suggesting a tag for someone, try using the {{tl}} or one of the others mentioned in its documentation. I used it here. As you can see, it not only inserts the brackets around the template name, so other users have something they can just copy-and-paste, but it links to the template without transcluding it so they can click and see what it looks like. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. One frustrating, or maybe expected, thing that I've seen with tagging images is that new users don't know what the concept of "tagging" is. I regularly clean out the backlog of images at Category:Image copyright tags and Category:Non-free image copyright tags that result when contributors copy and paste the template's contents into the image as opposed to typing { { t a g n a m e } }. I'm considering writing a little user space guide to tagging an image, with pictures and all, but that would have to wait still some time later. Do you have any thoughts about that? --Iamunknown 04:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a very good idea. It would be handy to point them to. You might even consider adding it to the Wikipedia namespace, especially since it will have to be maintained as tags change and you may not want to be the only one keeping an eye on it. The current "how to" pages on the subject are pretty badly written, so it's no wonder that some folks get confused. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm... it's too bad our Wikipedia articles on the topic aren't actually very good. If you want to learn more the best things to read would be some of the Commons policy pages, like Commons:Licensing and Commons:Derivative works. Browsing through some of the Commons Village Pump discussions and deletion discussions couldn't hurt either. And if you're wondering about something in particular just ask; there are plenty of folks at Commons who know more about these laws than I would (particularly internationally).--Pharos 04:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for doing the edits. One thing: the md:Template:Promosi request didn't work correctly. You can see the results at Template:Promotional. I think what the user meant to add was ms:Templat:Promosi (without the 'e' at the end of "template"). --Iamunknown 22:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Thanks for picking that up. Harryboyles 05:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Iamunknown/Archive 2 and thank you for your contributions on articles related to The Apprentice UK. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject The Apprentice UK, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of The Apprentice UK and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out and participate, please come over and visit us here for more information. Thanks! Dalejenkins 17:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Next time you wish to link to another page showing that the author of a page requested deletion, please use {{Db-authora|WhereTheDeletionRequestIs}}, where the parameter is the text that would go to a normal wikilink, not a URL. I almost mistook your request as vandalism because you were not the person who uploaded the image. I will normally consider using {{Db-author}} as vandalism unless you created the page yourself. Jesse Viviano 01:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the delayed response. It's a long story (no, really), but the short version is that it was convenient -- nearby, relatively speaking, about the distance from Chicago to Miami -- and I had the time and the money. It didn't take a lot of money, actually -- outside of Beijing, hotels were pretty cheap, and the trains weren't all that expensive (the 900 miles from Beijing to Chongqing ran about $75, as I recall, for "soft sleeper" class). I even managed most of it without a guidebook (not for any particularly philosophical reason, but just because I left the damned thing under my seat on the plane and could NOT find a replacement in Beijing), just an overnight bag and a printout of Chinese railroad timetables. Creature comforts DID vary wildly, but that's to be expected. --Calton | Talk 07:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'm still around, thanks for asking. Some times are busier for me than others, that's all. Yours, >Radiant< 09:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oh and yes, I think a new cat is appropriate. >Radiant< 09:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Though it would have been fine to give another warning and then see what happens, that IP has had such a long but scattered history here, largely consisting of vandalism, that I thought it was better to give a short block while people were watching it, as it might go unnotiedc if it vandalized again, and blocks are often better lessons than warnings. Academic Challenger 02:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Make sure to take a look at the file history when doing warnings. I simply reuploaded Image:8 Simple Rules for Dating My Teenage Daughter.jpg at a lower resolution based on a 3,000×2,400px version originally uploaded by Zanimum, so he would be the one to ask for a source. ShadowHalo 04:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Image:8 Simple Rules for Dating My Teenage Daughter.png" has a transparent background which the jpg file does not support. I recommend keeping the png instead of the jpg - it looks much cleaner on the actual page. Java13690 16:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Iamunknown. Be shocked no more, I'm an admin now. I wish to applaud you for your gender neutrality even in the face of overwhelming voices to the contrary. That take a bit of Wiki-courage, methinks. Anyhow, I will use my mop responsibly to serve the community, keeping in mind the constructive criticism given me. Thank you for your support. Please don't hesitate to give me constructive criticism anytime. Xiner (talk, email) 01:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message on my discussion page. Overlord's vandalism was so laughable that I thought I'd preserve it and bring a little humor to everyone's day. Maybe I should add to the header that I know nothing about grammar.... Tennis expert 01:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It is pretty freakin hilarious. When I read Overlord's post it seems so uppity. My personality is the complete opposite, so his/her post seems so foreign to me. --Iamunknown 01:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for expanding upon what I said, I probably should have explained better (referring to your reply to 'Please Stop' on ANNAfoxlover's talk page.. If you need to reach me, please leave a message on my talk page-Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 04:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Illyria, no problem. You can see on Anna's user page a quote, "Don't use fair use images anywhere but articles," attributed to me. While I did say that, I realize now it was a bit unclear. I hope I cleared my original intent up. BTW, love the username. :) --Iamunknown 04:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see, and thank you for the compliment.. Illyria is my favourite character in Angel :P Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 04:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, by the way, I see you can speak Spanish at a basic level; So can I! I'm learning it now :) .. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 04:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sí, hablo español un poco. Quiero ser más...you can tell its just going downhill from here...--Iamunknown 04:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

:P , I speak about the same level as you.. By the way, are you a member of the Espanol wikipedia? I joined and its helped me some with my Espanol :) .. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 05:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I haven't thought of that. I should try. Other people have told me that reading Harry Potter (or other familiar books) or, if your religious, scripture is also really good for reading comprehension. I wanna try Harry Potter. That'd be fun. :D --Iamunknown 05:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Mobile, I just noticed that you uploaded several images from bridgestone.co.jp to illustrate Bridgestone. That's fine and may be acceptable under WP:FAIR. I am wondering, however, if you realize that you tagged Image:Dam 3.jpg through Image:Dam 9.jpg (see all the images at Special:Prefixindex/Image:Dam) as GFDL images. The notice at the bottom of http://www.bridgestone.co.jp/english/diversified/rubberdam/design.html indicates "Copyright © 2006 Bridgestone Corporation." Is there a reason I am missing to think that the images are freely licensed? --Iamunknown 04:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont think the Dam images ever got used, I was going to expand the article to show this product but never got around to it. As they are used on the corporate web site as promotional content, they are acceptable under our fair use policy. Correct me if I am wrong. Mobile 01^Talk 22:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you closed the Template:British Shipbuilders evolution tfd per WP:SNOW. That's fine, and I've closed a couple afds even though I am not an administrator. Note, however, that as a non-admin, you should probably have noted that you are a non-admin. WP:ADMIN specifically says that "Any user can behave in a way befitting an administrator (provided they do not falsely claim to be one), even if they have not been given the extra administrative functions." Since administrators generally close xfds, it seems to, whether intentionally or not, be a false claim to close an xfd without disclosing your non-admin status. I added a short note which I think is appropriate given the case. Feel free to remove it if you wish to add a statement yourself. I think, however, that some disclosure should be apparent. --Iamunknown 22:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You might be unaware of this, but editors are not permitted to alter closed discussions, such as by adding further comments. Also, there is no requirement that editors in good-standing disclose a non-admin status when closing an XfD. And, the term "falsely claim" means a positive assertion of admin status, which I did not make. I would appreciate your reconsideration of altering the closed discussion. Thanks. -- Jreferee 23:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious, where in policy does it say that editors are not permitted to alter closed discussions? --Iamunknown 23:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, feel free to reply at your talk page. I'll find it on my watchlist soon enough. --Iamunknown 23:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you tell me why you undid my addition to the quilt? Did you find it offensive or something? I thought it was cool/amusing. Shouldn't the owner of the page decide what stays? Maybe I missed some message regarding what sorts of pictures the user would be ok with?Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 03:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. If you look at the image description page (Image:How-to-be-a-complete-bastard.jpg), you will notice that the image is a "fair use" image. Per Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy criterion No. 9, fair use media may not be used outisde of article namespace. --Iamunknown 03:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. So those other pictures are coming from where? I really need to spend more time studying this issue. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 04:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried again. If it is inappropriate, could you message me? Thanks, Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 04:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I too noticed the large amount of fair use images in that article (and IIRC added the replaceable fair use tag to a lot of them). I added a pretty bad free image before and contacted the owner of the current image on flickr asking her to license it under a free license. She agreed to change it today so there you go. ;) Yonatan ^talk 17:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I wrote an article on ChessDB. You sent me a message saying it was tagged for deletion. You appear to have deleted it anyway, without giving me chance to comment.

First, I did not write the original which was deleted. Looking at the reasons given for the deletion of the original, I don't think they appear to what I wrote.

1) User 'BlueValour' who is a 'newpage patroller' (an admin ??) added a 'red-link', from the Scid wikipedia page, so clearly he/she felt the article for ChessDB needed writing. (See the revision log of Scid). 2) There were only one or two external links on the ChessDB page I created. 3) I'm not the author of the software, so my view is probably more independant than 'drkirkby' who wrote the original one which was deleted. (He has made a few minor changes to this page, but I wrote most of it).

4) It was stated the software was 'non notable' before. How can this be so today? This site at #4 of the pick of his best free chess software. http://freechess.50webs.com/best.html

5) A debian package is waiting to be uploaded: http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/message/20070213.145721.fa0be66a.en.html and just needs a Debian Sponsor.

When a well respected chess site that reviews free chess software rates this as #4, it must surely deserve its own page. I did not see the original, so can't see how this compares, but I see nothing wrong with what I wrote.

Do you still feel the page should have been deleted? If not, can you restore it? Spiderpop 03:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not an administrator and, as such, did not delete the article "ChessDB" and cannot restore it. It was determined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ChessDB that the software ChessDB was non-notable. If you wish to overturn the consensus generated from that discussion, you may wish to read Wikipedia:Undeletion policy and Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose and then file a Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Iamunknown 03:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Iamunknown, I really appreciate you taking the time to say what you did on my talk page. I think this project, as a whole, would be a much better place if we could do little things such as that every once in a while. While this whole dispute is polarizing, we should never forget to be Civil and Assume Good Faith. The RfA process has really frustrated me for a while, so I hope that frustration hasn't been vented at other users. So, in summation, I guess this message serves no purpose other than to say "Thank you" for your saying "Thank you" first :-). All the best! Kntrabssi 13:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

re: this Hmmmm... why is this advisable? That cat was certainly applicable. Secondly, if used off site, would appreciate such is #ifeq: blocked around so is portable and stable for all sister sites. I hadn't attempted updating this one else where yet, but that 'Big picture thinking' saves re-doing. One big goal of TSP is to stabilize such so there is less endless second guessing of each other and redoing stuff with little need, so advise me. // FrankB 18:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Every image not in Category:GFDL images is not licensed under the GFDL...so the category is effectively moot. I didn't realize that the #ifeq: ParserFunction didn't work offsite. I've changed a lot of image copyright tags to use it, maybe I shouldn't. --Iamunknown 18:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Frank, I've asked a question related to one of your concerns at the technical village pump. I have no preference to use either <includeonly></includeonly> or {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Image|}}, but I don't know which I should use. You're welcome to offer further input there or to reply here. --Iamunknown 04:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry! I am the one that uploaded the wrongly named file and I just mixed up the names, they are so similar. You were right, the badnamed file is LMT GMT.jpg, I've reverted my changes and replaced the pic in the article Mexico (I thought I already did it). AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 19:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for clearing things up! --Iamunknown 19:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help but I have done that and it just doesn't work. I am getting desperate now. When I try to save it it doesn't work. I have even done the Control + F5 thing. Any more ideas? Cls14 20:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No sadly it doesn't I've tried that and followed all the help page instructions. Might have to give up unless you have anymore ideas or know any moderator who can help me. Cls14 21:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No luck with that. Restarted the PC too. This is the one thing that annoys me about Wikipedia. For all that is wonderful about it the people who make it and run it don't live in the real world and make it so complex that the average person can get into a pickle like this! Thanks for your help though, it was much appreciated! :-) Cls14 21:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be working now. I changed it on another computer in the end. Thanks for your patience when I was about to go mad! I dont know if you watch The Simpsons but Wikipedia and myself have the same relationship as Homer and the TV. So I hope that Wikipedia and myself don't have to fight anymore! All the best! Cls14 21:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

While they do not mention about the commercial reuse or the modification, they do not explicitly ban it either. Plus, the photo is still under a form of copyright (50 years after creation). I personally think with this and the Kremlin.ru template on the Commons, we have a severe misunderstanding on how the former Soviet Union deals with copyright. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I saw your comment on the Admin's Noticeboard that you were not an admin. If I nominated you for adminship, would you accept it? We need some more admins who understand about copyright issues and can effectively deal with them. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I personally am not familiar enough with Russian copyright law to comment; on another note, I have always assumed that we should not think we have rights (e.g. commercial reuse or derivative works) where none are mentioned. On your second post, I feel that I could help out more than now if I were an administrator and would like to be able to help out more than now. Currently I just make backlogs for administrators to clean up; as an administrator I could help clear out backlogs. :) I am unsure about accepting a nomination. I just feel uncertain. I know that doesn't answer your question. A more definitive answer: I will shortly be accepting further real life obligations, and am unsure what that will do to my wiki activity, so I should probably wait a while to see. But thank you for your offer. I may ask you at a later date. --Iamunknown 05:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem about the adminship. As for the template, I will pretty much arrange for that template to be deleted if the Kremlin.ru template is deleted from the Commons. A lot of Russian and Belarusian websites I faced and used pretty says for their copyright notice is that while their works are copyrighted, we could use it with the condition of citing the source. They don't mention about modification or commercial use, so that is why we are facing this confusion now. I am thinking about launching a snail mail letter to the Office of the President and see how that goes (I got replies before, but not on subjects related to this). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Iamunknown, good work with tagging orphaned fair use images. Just a reminder to please let each uploader know with {{subst:orphaned}}, just as a courtesy note. I am going through the category now and deleting images, and am letting some of the uploaders know now, but it's a bit stupid to let them now that their images is going to be deleted in 7 days... after I've deleted the image. :) Thanks, and keep up the good work! – Riana ^ঋ 07:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for not notifying the uploaders. I regularly do; it must have been an oversight on my part. --Iamunknown 18:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, I ran into a few others of yours and noticed that you informed people, so I realise it isn't a regular occurrence. Thanks again, – Riana ^ঋ 07:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! --Andrew4793 ^t _c 16:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could help. :-) --Iamunknown 18:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you been following this discussion? I think it generated some good comments. -- Jreferee 05:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Jreferee, I have not been following the discussion, but I just reviewed the comments and added a few of my own. I think it is good form to disclose non-administratorship, as did others, but agree with Radiant! that the process page is likely not the appropriate page to add binding policy-related statements or even semi-binding guideline-related statements. I proposed an addition to WP:DEL (which would, of course, need further discourse there) at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Deletion process. --Iamunknown 19:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just wondering why you undid my tagging of Image:Trevor Eve.jpg as replaceable fair use, only to then tag it yourself. This means the date on which it was tagged will have been reset.... _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 08:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You substituted the template, which means that, though you placed the tag on March 11th, the image is included in [[Category:Replaceable fair use images as of {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} 2007]]; the image would never be deleted because it would always be in the current day's replaceable fair use category. You can see for yourself on this diff. --Iamunknown 18:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see, my mistake. Many thanks for your explanation. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 20:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi "Iam", Further to the above discussion I think I'll close the MFD and run with the other proposal. If you'd be so kind as to advertise the new proposal as you suggested it would be appreciated. Thank you. --kingboyk 22:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Jreferee, I noticed your comment on my talk page and reviewed the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process. I'm surprised by the number of comments and added my own. I also have a question related to your rfa. Please don't take this as an insult, I really do not mean it to be. If you are given sysop status, would you consider including yourself to Category:Administrators open to recall? --Iamunknown 19:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Iamunknown - I think the number of comments on the deletion process reflects the importance of the issue. It was something that I never considered and when I received your first post, did not think it necessary. I gave it some thought,then it made sense. Another reason I just thought of is that it is a good way to advertise that non-admins can some close XfDs, which will help reduce the backlog. As for your request, I generally don't take anything as an insult on Wikipedia, lol. I would not have a problem with listing myself on Administrators open to recall. -- Jreferee 15:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, that post on ANI is confusing. I'll attempt to sort through this and see what I can make of it. --Deskana (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't see anything where you posted personal information, but to be honest, having read that ANI post, I'm also left confused. --Deskana (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries, give me a shout if you need anything else. --Deskana (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If you haven't noticed already, that template is a red link. I saw the new policy that the Foundation wants for images, so to beat the clock, I just either reverted back to the old licenses, put in fair use reasons or just deleted the images outright. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. --Iamunknown 05:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It stinks that it didn't become free enough (a few years ago, it probably was). I thinking the Kremlin photos will see the same fate unless something drastic happens. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I know. At the same time that I wish we could use every photo, I understand that there are copyrights on things....it stinks, I wish more people would freely (free as in freedom!) license their content. --Iamunknown 06:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Jreferee, thank you very much for this post on your rfa. I admit I was taken aback when I read it. I don't think anyone on Wikipedia has ever called me their "friend". You really are a very kind and civil person. I sincerely hope that you are given the sysop user rights or that you at least get the some at some point in the future. I really think that you are willing and qualified to help out Wikipedia in the extra capacity as a sysop-ed administrator. Even if you are not, I consider you an "administrator" in a literal sense of the term: you really do already help "administrate" Wikipedia. I didn't even know I could do things like close xfd discussions before I came across the tfd you closed! Anyways, thank you very much again for your kind words. Best, Iamunknown 06:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I was new to closing XfDs, too. I found it very interesting that you and I had opposing views on a topic and found out that we both were right (or perhaps both were wrong!). Your initial post came across as being very sincere and I really respect that. Also, you had sage advise at a time when I really needed it. You might enjoy this post. RfA requires about at least 70% if not 80%. My RfA is not near that. My RfA is almost closed, so it looks like it will be months before I can take a stab at the mop. Perhaps this is a blessing in disguise since it will give me plenty of time to investigate from first-hand experience issues regarding non-admin closing of XfDs (lol). -- Jreferee 06:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I know that rfa requires that large of a majority...it kind of stinks. It's funny; I really seriously thought you were an administrator when I first left the image-related note on your talk page and especially when you closed that tfd. Oh well, we can now spend more time figuring out what to do about non-administrator closings. I personally think that speedy closes should be within the realm of non-administrator closings. If only because I think that tfd you closed was a perfectly acceptable and justified close. Maybe we can work that out. --Iamunknown 16:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, unknown one! I guess that it's good that you like my userspace. Better than hating it and MFDing it, eh? It is classy in the sense that it uses a bit of CSS, of course :) I'm generally rather loose/casual with my userspace... a lot of open space, and a lot of my favorite color.
/leave See ya around Gracenotes^T § 17:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol to the CSS joke! I guess it's also better than taking up 10k about which icon should be used where. :-P --Iamunknown 17:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I left you a message on my page.- Coastergeekperson04 I left you another message on my page.- Coastergeekperson04 18:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if an administrator told me "it is againt our policy" it would be different because an administrator is representing Wikipedia. A normal user certainly does not represent Wikipedia and I don't think I have to go in to detail why they don't. It's really a stupid thing to be discussing and it doesn't even matter, the images are gone for good and I'm not going to fight it.
NewYork1956 02:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that a normal user does not represent Wikipedia the same way an administrator does because many normal users vandalize and whatnot and it's the administrator's job to stop them. They are NOT the same at all.
NewYork1956 05:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Upper class? What are you talking about? I simply said Administrators represent Wikipedia in a different way than users because they work for Wikipedia where regular users, some who may vandalize, do not. There's hardly anything to get worked up over, and you are certainly in the minority if you disagree with me.
NewYork1956 00:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I assumed it wasn't intentional after reviewing some of your other edits, although I didn't check those edits until after I restored the votes.

Incidently, do you know if all versions of Firefox have this problem? I'm using Opera at the moment, so I haven't run in to this issue. -- Powerlord 04:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've copied the discussion to WP:VPP. The Transhumanist   05:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Iamunknown. I see you removed the {{ifd}} tag from Image:Time-magazine-cover-lafollette-phil.jpg, with an edit summary of "I guess this passed ifd..". It was listed on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 March 19#Image:Time-magazine-cover-lafollette-phil.jpg, and there were no comments at all from anyone but me. If an administrator had decided the image should stay, despite any arguments to this end from anyone, I would expect to see a note on IFD and a comment to this effect on the image's talk page. I have restored the {{ifd}} tag; if you have a reason to believe that the discussion really has been closed by an administrator, please provide some evidence. —Bkell (talk) 06:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• No evidence to present. I assumed that, because most of the images in the 2007-03-24 page were deleted, that the 2007-03-19 IfD was complete. You'll find other images that I removed the {{ifd}} tag under similar circumstances from and you may wish to revert me there as well. --Iamunknown 06:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think it was WP:CANVASSy the way it was. That template appears on many (if not all) AMA members' talk pages, and presumably it only exists on the talk pages of members who are involved or interested in AMA. These people would presumably be especially interested in that MFD. And it seems to me that a "special alert" notice placed in that template is less WP:CANVASSy than putting comments on everyone's talk pages. After all, people watching the updates on that template should and probably do want to know that the template and its purpose may become inactive. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting me know. --Iamunknown 20:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think letting some of the recently active members of a project know (via comments) that the project is up for deletion is the same thing as canvassing or even votestacking -- and as we've seen, they don't necessarily lean one way or the other merely by being in the project. I think the people involved in a project ought to be notified that the project is on the chopping block. I really doubt WP:CANVASS has that scenario in mind. It talks about articles, not projects. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 04:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The images were not kept by me that I remember. I was still contemplating the Finnish Defense Forces images and the Time Magazine Cover and hoping that some other Admin would resolve the issue, which maybe someone did! Please provide the diff you spoke of and I'll take a look and see. -Regards Nv8200p talk 22:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the comment I removed: It is my understanding that the user has the power to remove (or archive) comments from their talk page.[Wikipedia:User_page#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space] and since the user has retired and wishes for no comments to be placed on his talk page, it follows that someone else would do that for him. Mahanga^{Talk to me} 05:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm, I think that we shouldn't remove correspondence on user or other talk pages unless the user is banned (per WP:BAN) or it is clearly vandalism. (Of course, users are free to manage their user spaces as they see fit, as long as it isn't disruptive.) I didn't see the edits to Qxz's talk page as vandalism, but I'm definitely not infallible, so maybe I'm wrong. BTW, thanks for the message. ^_^ --Iamunknown 05:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I put all the comments in an archive. Hopefully that satisfies people – Qxz 10:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Please be careful when tagging articles with CSD:G4. Conspiracy of Silence is not a re-creation of the article that was deleted in an AfD in November 2006, which was about an unaired television documentary; the current article is about a completely different 2003 British film that happens to share the same title. Best, --MCB 06:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

you're such a bad guy here, no offense, cheers --Emperor Walter Humala · ^{( talk? · help! )} 04:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comment and my reaction: The answer is undue weight. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Abu badali, have you seen User:Jord/ArbCom-Abu badali? I figured you should if you haven't. I hope it doesn't escalate to that. Best, Iamunknown 05:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I don't think I have reasons to be afraid of arb-com, though. And I'll be willing to participate in any civil forum about my behavior. Thanks for caring. Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 11:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad to. I appreciate the work that you do. And I'm sorry for any collateral damage I may have caused by my little tiffy at ANI. Sometimes I can remain calm and civil and other times not. I get more frustrated than naught when Wikipedians diss those do image-related cleanup. It is a necessary task to keep Wikipedia from using material that clearly does not qualify under fair use. I don't doubt Irpen's intentions; he is great Wikipedia editor and author. The only times I have interacted with him, however, it has been to do with images and he is so abrasive and rude. Anyways, no more commentary, I'm sorry that you got associated with me over there, I was definitely not in a good state of emotion. Best, Iamunknown 03:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

sometimes controversial articles require an instantaneous TIME OUT. after my instantaneous response, i conducted further research and came up with a more appropriate Wikipedia response that you also recommended. Conservapedia is claimed to have called Wikipedia pedophiles which is the most serious accusation, worst than a murderer, worst than a terrorist. this purported claim needs to be investigated and addressed by the appropriate Wikipedia Authority, and not just editors. i called a time out until the matter is sorted out. παράδοξος 03:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you may wish to request protection at WP:RFPP. --Iamunknown 03:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

see a flurry of activity on certain history pages, been there done that. 04:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)